Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Let's See..The "Smoking Gun?

Hello TDS fans! If ANYONE knew what "high crimes and misdemenours" the man you hate almost as much as Hitler (no you people have COMPARED him to Hitler so I take it back) regarding whatever it is the Democrat Socialists say President Trump did or did not do in order to be removed from office in a coup (the words of the "whistleblower's own attorney) it MUST be the ethnically Ukrainian former American ambassador to the non-country of Ukraine. Now let's not worry about the fact that she was fired by Trump for instructing the embassy staff to spy on US citizens...lets get to what REALLY matters. Here, in her OWN WORDS,...is her sworn testimony.

Question: Do you have ANY information, regarding the President of the United States, accepting any bribes?

Yovanovitch: No.

Question: Do you have any information regarding criminal activity the Presdient of the United States has been involved with?

Yavanovitch. No.

GOT HIM! IMPEACH 45!

Now for you Trump-haters out there I suggest you grow up, get a real as opposed to a fanatsy life sold to you by the corporate-controlled media (yes that's right you will have to start thinking rationaly and for yourslef and not learn what to believe by watching corporate-owned assholes like Wol Blitzer ask women about their marrried life)and start behaving if not thinking like mature, rational adults...good luck with that!

UPDATE! OPPS! For people like Autumn25 who believes a president of the United States can prevent American citizens from testifying like Ambassador Sondland MORE bad news!

Rep Jordan: "You asked the president of the United States "What do you want from Ukraine?" The President: 'I want NOTHING, I want NO quid pro quo, I want Zelinsky to DO THE RIGHT THING, I want him to do what he ran on! Tell him this is the final word of the president...."I WANT NOTHING!' Why didn't you out THAT in your opening statement?"

Sondland: "(The omission) wasn't purposeful...trust me."

UH-OH! CERTAINLY a good day for someone but it wasn't Sondland!

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SW-User

[quote] Do you have any information regarding criminal activity the Presdient of the United States has been involved with?[/quote]

Well of course Ms. Yavanovich doesn’t because she’s not close to Trump. Bolton, Giuliani, and Mulvaney are, but Trump won’t let them testify and neither will Trump himself testify. So much for being innocent I guess.

1-25 of 42

Abrienda · 26-30, F

@SW-User She is the AMBASSSADOR TO THE UKRAINE! Are you saying she just "didn't know" bribery or quid pro quos or whatever nonsense you are told to believe today was taking place IN THE COUNTRY SHE WAS ANBASSADOR, that NO ONE in the Ukrainian government alerted her to the fact such a thing was taking place, that as an ethnic Ukrainian fluent in the language she had NO PRIVATE SOURCES OF INFORMATION TO ALERT HER?

How desperate are you that when something doesn't come out the way you want you make up arguments as absolutely silly as the one you just made?

Sweetheart, Trump cannot forbid ANYBODY from testifying while Bolton DOES NOT WORK FOR TRUMP or the government anymore so he cannot prevent him from doing anything.

Perhaps you better study your own history and learn about the separation/co-equal powers in your government.

How about Zelensky who said nothing like what is being alleged happened? Maybe he also just not "close enough" to Giuliani, Bolton et alai to know what was really going on in the conversation he was actually having with the president?

Look, try and understand that twisting reality to suit your bias every time what you think SHOULD happen doesn't instead of simply accepting that you are WRONG is a sign of serious mental and psychological illness. Accept these facts. All the witnesses last week said they had NO information to back up the conspiracy theory people like you believe - ALL! The president of Ukraine said it didn't happen. Weigh that against what you "know" and see how it comes out.

Good luck...you will need it.

SW-User

@Abrienda

[quote] Trump cannot forbid ANYBODY from testifying[/quote]

He has. Bolton, Guliani and Mulvaney are the people Trump has told not to testify. The Trump administration had even blocked key witness Gordon Sondland from testifying.

Abrienda · 26-30, F

@SW-User If your presidents have the power you think they do, why didn't President Nixon "order" John Dean not to testify before Congress during Watergate? And again John Bolton is not in the Trump admin anymore, or didn't you know that? Unless you are saying they WANT to testify and evil Donald is preventing them. Are you actually suggesting that?

I see you have NO answer to what I said about the "star witnesses" denying they knew anything about anything, plus Zelensky also denying anything untoward happened. But that doesn't give you pause to think you just dismiss it and go on to the next fake argument like a drug addict looking for a fix. Only your drug is hatred of Trump. Sad.

I got to go to bed. Please do yourself a favor and read a book on your own government, because you don't even know how your own government works, supposing you are an American? Or retake the HS civics course you failed because it is pointless to discuss this with you. You are simply too ignorant.

SW-User

@Abrienda

What does this have to do with Nixon? If Trump says he’s innocent then it would be a smart idea to let his close associates testify as well as himself and let the truth come out on its own. That’s not hate, that just simply giving common sense. Please learn the difference.

Abrienda · 26-30, F

@SW-User

I will explain.

Nixon was a president.

Trump is a president.

Nixon did not order John Dean not to testify before Congress because he couldn't.

Trump ditto.

Understand now? It refutes your idiotic "Trump ordered Giuliani" argument.

Glad you finally realize after being told twice that Bolton is no longer working for the White House.

The truth is out. You just don't want to accept it. You are like a 9/11 Truther...you cannot present logic and facts to them, either.

And if you think the Democrats in the House are interested in "the truth" than you are either more naïve or more stupid than I originally thought.

Please give it up. I am not being paid to educate you on things you should already know and you're boring me now.

SW-User

@Abrienda Nixon was president a century ago. He’s irrelevant. Trump continues to whine that Republicans aren’t receiving due process, yet he prevents certain people (who are Republican) from testifying. Trump also has the right to testify to clear his name but refuses to do so.

[quote] Bolton is no longer working for the White House. [/quote]

Okay so because Bolton is no longer working for the White House then Trump should let him go and testify instead of telling him not to.

Abrienda · 26-30, F

@SW-User

Nixon was "a century ago"? That's your argument? Your CONSTITUTION is THREE CENTURIES old! is it irrelevant, too? I was trying to explain to you by an example you are too ignorant, dumb or stupid to grasp is that what the Constitution DID NOT allow NIXON also applies to TRUMP...don't you understand that? Or do you think your Constitution changes every four years?

Your remark about Bolton et alia was always based on a false premise (Google it) but and so revealed your profound lack of education that I should not bother replying but I will try to help you one last time. I will type slowly so you can understand this the third time around -

1)Bolton is not employed by Trump.

2)Even if he were, Trump cannot prevent him from testifying to anything.

3)Therefore your claim is UNTRUE and wherever you read that (or in your case more likely heard that on CNN as you have proven you cannot read) was as uninformed about your Constitution as you are.

Autumn, you have always shown yourself to be incapable of logical thought with no knowledge of history (the relevance of the Nixon analogy which you TOTALLY missed TWICE!) and even less on reality. You are just wasting my time so read this but if your rely is as idiotically childish as the others it will be deleted and you blocked with an unflattering explanation for both actions.

SW-User

@Abrienda

[quote] Even if he were, Trump cannot prevent him from testifying to anything. [/quote]

Well Trump did. So there you go.

Abrienda · 26-30, F

@SW-User Oh God never mind. It's like discussing Conrad with a ten year old.

StrictSouthernHOH · 46-50, M

@SW-User Trump is guilty because the Democrats have no evidence?

SW-User

@StrictSouthernHOH Democrats have evidence, and Trump has been welcomed to testify his case to counteract that evidence to clear his name, but he refuses and that says a lot.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

StrictSouthernHOH · 46-50, M

@SW-User What evidence? So far all they have is third or fourth party hearsay.

SW-User

@StrictSouthernHOH That he was only interested in finding dirt on Biden rather than helping Ukraine fight corruption. Which is an abuse of power.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

SW-User

@IstillmissEP Yes it is. Don’t like it? Oh well. Trump should not have been abusing his presidential powers.

StrictSouthernHOH · 46-50, M

@SW-User I thought Liberals/Progressives/Democrats cared about finding and eliminating corruption. Apparently not.

SW-User

@StrictSouthernHOH We do. The only one preventing that process in this investigation is Trump himself who hid the original phone call in a WH server, told advisors close to him not to testify, told other witnesses not to testify, won’t testify to clear up any confusion and so much more.

StrictSouthernHOH · 46-50, M

@SW-User Trump is on tape trying to uncover corruption, but because it involves the son of a high-level Democrat presidential candidate it somehow is an impeachable offense. It is obvious to anyone paying attention that the impeachment inquiry is a trial in search of a crime.

SW-User

@StrictSouthernHOH Trying to find any evidence on an American politician by withholding aid from a country in need of it, is opposite of finding corruption. That's an abuse of presidential power, which is an impeachable offense, so there you go. You can continue to say Trump is innocent and this and that, but his actions before and during this impeachment hearing prove otherwise.

StrictSouthernHOH · 46-50, M

@SW-User Your premise is false. There was never a demand for help uncovering corruption in exchange for the aid-which was provided. If performing his constitutional duties is an impeachable offense, can we retroactively impeach Obama?

SW-User

@StrictSouthernHOH Actually there was. That's why Ms. Yavanovitch testified. And she was one of the witness that the Trump administration attempted to block from testifying. Trump got rid of her for no reason, as she stated in her testimony. Now why's that? Why would an "anti-corrupt" president get rid of someone who fought corruption? And I do Know that if Obama did the same thing Trump did, you and Republicans would be screaming for his impeachment. So keep wasting your time trying to prove Trump is innocent, it's not going to stick because as I've stated before his actions speak louder than words.

StrictSouthernHOH · 46-50, M

@SW-User Ms. Yavanovitch served at the pleasure of the president. Her service no longer pleased him and she was dismissed-before the Ukrainian call in question. How she felt is irrelevant. Even the President of Ukraine said he never felt pressured. Was he lying?

SW-User

@StrictSouthernHOH Trump was no longer pleased by Yovanovitch because she wasn't some corrupt ambassador, so the best thing for him to do was remove her from her post. See, notice how every person Trump appoints as his advisors and whatnot turn out to be corrupt? Notice how many of them have been indicted or serving time in jail? For example, Roger Stone. As the saying goes birds of a feather flock together.

StrictSouthernHOH · 46-50, M

@SW-User They are corrupt because you say so?

1-25 of 42